I think I'm a part of the first generation of journalists to skip print media entirely, and I've learned a lot these last few years at Forbes. My work has appeared on TVOvermind, IGN, and most importantly, a segment on The Colbert Report at one point. Feel free to follow me on Twitter or on Facebook, write me on Facebook or just email at paultassi(at)gmail(dot)com. I'm also almost finished with my sci-fi novel series, The Earthborn Trilogy.

Why There's No Magic Bullet to Get Gamers to Trust Journalists

If you missed all the drama a week or two ago, Eurogamer sparked a big controversy that had gaming journalists and fans in an uproar. One of their columnists wrote a piece about the increasingly cozy relationship between publisher PR and the journalists meant to cover their products, actually naming a few he believed to be the worst offenders.

One of them, Lauren Wainwright, threatened legal action against Eurogamer for “libel” which they apparently committed, according to her, by quoting her own tweets. They had to amend the column, and the columnist volunteered to step down, but it sparked a storm in the industry where journalists, publishers and fans all started yelling at one other about each’s role in the industry.

In the wake of all this, Eurogamer has come out with a new set of policies that they will follow in future when covering games. The goal is to prove to fans that their affections are not being bought by fancy trips or special treatment. Here’s what they’ve outlined:

We do not attend “VIP” review events at hotels or abroad.

If it is ever necessary to review games at a company’s offices then we will cover travel and accommodation costs ourselves and disclose the conditions under which the game was reviewed.

If we accept travel or accommodation from a company then we disclose it.

We will only accept games, items for reviews and things that enable us to do our job (i.e. consoles, peripherals).

Games and other items received through work may not be sold or traded. If they are no longer useful for work then they will be given to the GamesAID charity.

Staff and contributors are not permitted to do “mock reviews” for or provide consultancy to games publishers.

Staff and contributors may not write about a company they have worked for in any capacity within the last two years.

Some of this stuff is common sense, like of course those who have worked at a company shouldn’t be reviewing that company’s games. Others, like not attending VIP events or accepting travel and accommodation costs, are likely to be a little more controversial among the gaming press.

The truth is, despite what the public may think, what bias there is in the industry because of the pampering of games journalists is not some widespread infection that’s inflating review scores all over the map. Chances are when you read a review, you’re reading that person’s opinion of that game, and that is all. For every legitimate instance of bias, there are a thousand other complaints that stem simply from “this person did/didn’t like this game and I didn’t/did.”

But despite what journalists may think, this is a perception problem among the public that makes the entire industry less trustworthy as a whole, even if bias is not directly being inserted into reviews. When games journalists are best friends with PR people and being flown all over the country for private events giving them a hand-held tour through a new game, it looks like the relationship is a bit too close. When journalists are tweeting fake enthusiasm for a new game to win a PS3, it’s gone too far. When Geoff Keighley is sitting on set as the fourth pillar of a Mountain Dew, Doritos and Halo 4 advertisement, it seems justified for gamers to decry the image as everything wrong with professional gaming coverage.

Sigh.

My own experience with this dichotomy can best be summed up with an event that took place nearly two years ago when I was invited for a private look behind the scenes of Spike’s Video Game Awards. The show claims to want to be the Oscars of video games, but is so heavily commercialized, relying on the debuts of new game trailers to attract viewers, it doesn’t have the same sort of authority as award shows in other mediums.

Again, a familiar name comes up, Geoff Keighley, who was instrumental in putting the show together. He was a very nice guy who was more than happy to take all the time in the world to talk to Forbes, and give me a behind the scenes look at the festivities that even the other journalists in attendance didn’t get. As great as the production values of the event were, the common thread running through it all was that it just felt like one big advertisement. Either for new games themselves, or the products that had deals with Spike or these games.

And then there was my own personal experience of it all.I was given a behind the scenes tour and unlimited access to anyone I wanted to talk to, celebrity presenters included. Though no one ever said it, it felt like I’d be letting all of them down if I didn’t write a glowing piece about the event.

I didn’t. While I praised the hard work where it was due, and highlighted some of the cooler features of production, I could not say that the event was not without big flaws. The hype surrounding new game footage and trailer dwarfed the actual awards. Celebrity presenters were often awkward and out of place. PopularPopular AAA games were nominated in categories that didn’t even make sense. In the end, despite pointing out all this, I was maybe even a little too nice in my piece.

I sent my coverage to Geoff and the rest of the Spike staff, who’d been very kind before. Whether they ever read it, I’m not sure, but I never heard back from any of them, nor have I received invites to the VGAs in years since. Perhaps they just forgot about me, or perhaps their investment didn’t yield the return they were hoping for.

That experience always stuck with me, and taught me something about VIP treatment that many game journalists receive on a routine basis. The motivation behind these VIP visits are clear for the game developers. They want you not just to play their game early, they want you to say nice things about it. And it can be a lot of pressure on a journalists to give a fair assessment. It’s not like playing an advance copy of a game in your living room alone. When you’ve met the people that spent years designing it, and have them talk you through the entire process in detail while paying for your flight and stay, a part of you feels…bad if you don’t like what they’re trying to sell.

Some games are bribe-proof by their nature, however.

That said, I’m not saying journalists will alter their coverage based on emotions like that, but these events definitely put the possibility there. It’s far easier to say you hate a dish if you haven’t met the wonderfully pleasant chef and watched him slave away in the kitchen for hours to make it for you.

Eurogamer’s new policies remove that sort of situation from the equation. It’s a combination of refusing gifts and special treatment, or at least disclosing it when they do accept either. I’m not sure it’s enough to convince fans that they, or any outlet that adopts similar policies, aren’t biased, but it’s a gesture that implies they’re at least taking the perception problem seriously.

Obviously for many major outlets, these sort of policies are impossible to implement. Places like Game Informer rely on these incredibly close PR relationships to land huge cover story after huge cover story. It’s hard to imagine them stating before every feature the exact list of what was paid for and how they managed to acquire such exclusive access to a game. Deep-seated relationships within the industry are the only way cover stories like that get written, for better or worse.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

The gaming press can be considered more of an enthusiast community that White House Press Corps-level journalists, and as such the rules become a little slacker to many involved, especially those who require more than just a review title to conduct their business. It’s much the same in the auto journalist business, where the buff books are almost forced to rely on a copacetic, if not cozy, relationship with automakers to enjoy access to cars, advance information and behind the scenes info. At the least, editorial should follow film journalism and operate on multiple levels. Cultivate inside sources gingerly for early-release game info. Take the trip and the interviews for colorful background and “about the game” features. But make sure the features and reviews are written by separate writers. Use only “clean” writers who can stay above the inner workings of the business for hard-core reviews.

Strangely, this all hasn’t changed a lot since the early days of gaming when I was covering Atari and Intellivision home titles and the latest arcade releases. Only in the case of the latter if one didn’t have a relationship with the game companies (or, in my case, a kindly local mob coin-op distributor) you’d soon go broke at 25-50 cents a play trying to learn a particular game.

I agree, having one person assigned to following the pre-release hype and another writing the actual review sounds like the most reasonable solution. The steps Eurogamer takes might prove to be a bit too extreme and they may end up eating their words few months down the road. Even then, I apprieciate the fact they are trying to do something about the situation. It’s becoming kind of ridiculous when you know no big release will fall below 85 on Metacritic (complete duds like the new Medal of Honor nonwithstanding). The last three big hits – Halo 4, Black Ops II and Assassin’s Creed III – all basically have the same average score and the few reviews I’ve read don’t even sound all that different than promotional materials for the game.

Thanks for being honest about the simple fact that special treatment does provide some pressure (however small it may be) to be more positive towards the video game/celebrity/event/whatever. Obviously, it is something a lot of people don’t like to admit but you’re totally right. It’s a lot easier for me to say “this is terrible” when the person who created/worked on the dish/game/book/movie isn’t sitting right there. Plus, if they’ve given me some free goodies? Heck yeah, that makes me want to be nice to them.

How much does it actually influence scores? Hard to say. I don’t think, just to take Halo for example, is famous simply because of high review scores. A game can get all the high scores it wants but if people don’t like it, it won’t do well. Still, it definitely can be an issue and I think you make some good points on it.

EuroGamer France had reviewed Call of Duty: Blops II recently, 9/10 “best game in the series”, author was someone named Julien Chevron: http://www.eurogamer.fr/articles/2012-11-13-call-of-duty-black-ops-2

On his LinkedIn-Profile people found following text: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/julienchevron “PR Manager – Activision August 2004 – Present (8 years 4 months) Achievements : – The 2 most imposing and important PR campaigns by Activision-Blizzard France for Call of Duty : Modern Warfare 2 and Call of Duty : Black Ops, the 2 biggest launches in the history of entertainment in France and the world.”

He changed the length of his “ employment” shortly after, but nonetheless, the guy had worked for 7 years as Activision in the role of PR Manager for the same brand he was now reviewing.